Estimable

I'm planning to buy a new laptop to replace and old one, and i think my current laptop is good enough despite it doesn't have a dedicated graphics.
What i plan to buy is a laptop with i3 5010U and GT940M (Asus A455LB), my concern is not that 940M, but the i3.
I know that its Broadwell vs Sandy Bridge, and Broadwell is a clear winner, but how about the performance? (i mean, its an ULV processor compared to an M series)

Estimable

It will be MUCH faster actually, particularly if your old laptop didn't have good thermals.

Interestingly enough, unless you need CUDA or high end games, you might as well get an i5 or i7 U laptop, the performance difference in graphics is actually much smaller than you think!

hm, thanks for the information, but i think i'll stick with i3, because it's good enough, i5 imho, not really worth since it's still a dual-core even if it has the boost, and i can't get an i7 for budget reasons.

but well, with 940M, is it really that different (i3 vs i5)? and if it's about 3 to 5 fps difference in gaming, is it really matter? just asking for your opinion, since i game alot, but not that serious about high fps, 30 is good enough
Thanks

Honorable

hm, thanks for the information, but i think i'll stick with i3, because it's good enough, i5 imho, not really worth since it's still a dual-core even if it has the boost, and i can't get an i7 for budget reasons.

but well, with 940M, is it really that different (i3 vs i5)? and if it's about 3 to 5 fps difference in gaming, is it really matter? just asking for your opinion, since i game alot, but not that serious about high fps, 30 is good enough
Thanks

1) ALL U series chips are dual core HT, i3 lacks boost and has slower iGPU, while the i7 is higher clocked (with i5 being "default"
2) You misunderstood me, I said you can get JUST an i5 6200/6300 instead of an i3 5010+ dGPU . The internal graphics of the i5 6200 when using low graphics settings will let you play most games within a reasonable difference to the 940m. Only when you get into higher graphics settings (which won't get you 30fps on either chip) do you actually have significant improvements with the 940 (still unplayable for FPS though)
The price difference between the two options is almost nothing, and you trade a faster CPU for slightly slower GPU

Estimable

hm, thanks for the information, but i think i'll stick with i3, because it's good enough, i5 imho, not really worth since it's still a dual-core even if it has the boost, and i can't get an i7 for budget reasons.

but well, with 940M, is it really that different (i3 vs i5)? and if it's about 3 to 5 fps difference in gaming, is it really matter? just asking for your opinion, since i game alot, but not that serious about high fps, 30 is good enough
Thanks

1) ALL U series chips are dual core HT, i3 lacks boost and has slower iGPU, while the i7 is higher clocked (with i5 being "default"
2) You misunderstood me, I said you can get JUST an i5 6200/6300 instead of an i3 5010+ dGPU . The internal graphics of the i5 6200 when using low graphics settings will let you play most games within a reasonable difference to the 940m. Only when you get into higher graphics settings (which won't get you 30fps on either chip) do you actually have significant improvements with the 940 (still unplayable for FPS though)
The price difference between the two options is almost nothing, and you trade a faster CPU for slightly slower GPU

all right then, if that's so, i'll consider the i5, thanks for the answer

Share this page

About us

Our community has been around for many years and pride ourselves on offering unbiased, critical discussion among people of all different backgrounds. We are working every day to make sure our community is one of the best.